Author Options:

Carbon emissions still increasing despite recession Answered

With the whole economic kerfuffle going on you would've thought that there would be less carbon going up into the air. New studies show that emissions continue to ride, however.

The data is collected and analyzed by scientists from the Norwegian Polar Institute and Stockholm University. Researchers found that during the first two weeks of March, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 393.71 parts per million (ppm), up from 393.17 ppm during the same period last year. John Stroem, a scientist with the Norwegian Polar Institute, told Reuters that looking back at data gathered since the 1980s, the increase in carbon concentration levels seems to be accelerating.

Discussions

We need to work on getting affordable renewable energy (even biomass that can be quickly regenerated) to the developing world. There are more people in the undeveloped world than there are in the industrialized ones, so if we get them to start using green technology, the process will hopefully stick.

That's what will *probably* happen. Humans have proven that they are able to react to something, but sadly it usually takes a huge kick to the balls to get them going. Though, I'd rather a breakdown in society or a decentralization of humans (IE going back to city states)

Well lets see Your a CARBON based life form as most animals are...... you exhale CARBON monoxide Trees thrive on CARBON monoxide CARBON is in everything from pencils to Concrete and tires to Common Dirt ...so whats actually being said here is HOLD YOUR BREATH and Don't Produce anything that might be skewed as un-enviromental ......

Im all for enviromentalism but not when it invokes taxes on an already overtaxed country with a science that is totally unproven and onr that has been proven to be manipulated to be something that its not !

Recession or no recession, the developing world is still industrialising. A few western families not being able to maintain two cars and two holidays a year isn't going to outweigh billions of people with a growing consumption of electricity, fossil fuels and so on.

I'm not making a value judgement here, I'm just trying to highlight a division in the issue. The west produces more emissions per capita than the developing world, so we are the ones who need to reduce our energy use, but the bulk of gross emissions is likely to come from India, China etc. within a few decades, where I believe commodity renewable energy and other technological solutions will be important. See this article (slightly NSFW language, you have been warned) for why I don't think we are in a position to tell the rest of the world to consume less.

To reiterate, I really don't think we should entirely focus on one or the other but I think we have got our approaches the wrong way round. Instead of trying to push the developing world into using less energy while we are "being efficient" by each driving a Prius two miles to work, we should make all our clean energy technology more available (that isn't cost-effective here given the massive corporate fossil fuel hegemony, aka Big Oil etc., or just isn't relevant here but would be welcomed in the developing world) and do our own part by using less and wasting less.

PKM, oddly enough your recommendation has [in fact] become the evolution of green energy technologies and investment strategies here in the US. About 2 years back I patented a few designs for the mechanical means to generate electricity using run-of-river hydropower. I formed a little company and the experts we showed our ideas to all agreed it was a brilliant idea, and one that would work on a national scale, but after we started generating interest with investors we have come to learn that US investors are only interested in investing in fuel (oil, gas, coal, etc.); things that can be sold to the highest bidder. All of our investment discussions and NDAs that we have signed to date have come from overseas. We are an American company, but chances are that when we do get started building these things (www.hklabllc.com) it will be for foreign shores...definitely not the way we predicted it will go.

They already have all of the money and the power. They also have a vested interest in selling what remaining fuel is left and to stifle compitition until they have sold it all. Just before they sell the last drop of fuel they will invest in other technologies and ideas. The problem is they still have enough left to keep the status-quo up for another 20 years or so. We won't see a real shift in the money flow from non-renewables to alternative energy until they feel they no longer have a produc that they can sell.

Jeff-o you would be pleasantly surprised. In Europe having less money has meant that some of us have moved to cycling and public transport. I did it 3 years ago, have commuted 6000 miles to work over that time, have lsot weight and am fitter. I wash clothes by hand, cut my grass with a push mower, burn sustainable wood, recycle my trash. I'll never go back to having a motor car again. Oh by the way - I'm nearly 60....

But we look to you Americans to give us a lead - you're often the World's ideas people !

This site by the centre for alternative energy in the uk is interesting:

www.zerocarbonbritain.org

They have interesting ideas like intelligent charging systems for electric cars as distributed energy storage devices for the grid. (To get round the problems of the intermittent nature of renewable energy and daily fluctuations in energy demand.)